Corpus-Paul

[Micheal Palmer <mwpalmer AT earthlink.net>]

At 11:26 AM -0500 4/2/99, Bill Ross wrote:
>>{Bill}
>>"Supplanted" is not an appropriate description of the relationship.
>
>{Jim}
>It is because Christians today are far more "Paulinists" than they are
>"Jesusites".  For example- think of the matter of "justification".  In
>Jesus, justification comes about by repentence and behavior.  For Paul it
>occurs when one "believes".  For Jesus it is by works- whereas for Paul it
>is faith....  hmmmmm....  no wonder the Church has argued about these two
>ways of salvation for so long...
>
>{Bill}
>This distinction is imaginary. Jesus taught justification by faith:
>
>Mark 1:
>14  Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee,
>preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
>15  And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand:
>repent ye, and believe the gospel.
>
[And a great deal more deleted to save bandwidth...]

May I suggest that there is still another difficulty to be resolved in
understanding the views of the Gospel writers in relation to Paul on the
issue of justification by faith. Bill and Jim have debated the question of
whether there is any view of justification by faith in the Gospels, but I
would like to ask whether the traditional understanding of this topic is
even present in Paul.

It seems quite clear to me that Paul does not mean by PISTIS what Luther
meant by "Glaube" (faith). PISTIS can certainly mean "faith" or "trust",
but it can also mean "faithfulness" as it must in Romans 3:3.

The debate over justification by faith is in some ways more at home in the
Protestant Reformation than in the ministry of Paul.  Certainly Paul fought
against the view that a right relationship with God can be bought by proper
conduct, but he did not replace faithful behavior with intellectual assent
to a set of doctrines (although he was certian *accused* of doing that).
It was probably such accusations that caused him to write in his letter to
the Romans (6:1-2):

TI OUN EROUMEN;  EPIMENWMEN THi AMARTIAi, INA H CARIS PLEONASHi;  MH
GENOITO.  OITINES APEQANOMEN THi AMARTIAi, PWS ETI ZHSOMEN EN AUTHi;
What then should we say?  Should we remain in sin so that grace may abound?
Of course not.  How can we who died to sin go on living in it?

For Paul, faithfulness (PISTIS) is clearly important. Salvation comes by
PISTIS alone, not by 'belief' alone.

Now, I'm not trying to say that Luther misunderstood Paul in some
fundamental sense. I'm just saying that his circumstances were different
from those of Paul, so statements which emphasized faithfulness and trust
for Paul spoke clearly against Church dogma and a different kind of
legalism for Luther. Just as Paul taught that right relationship with God
could not be bought by Torah observance (i.e. it was not necessary to
become Jewish before becoming Christian), so Luther under a very different
set of circumstances argued that indulgences could not buy salvation and
flawless conduct--even if it could be achieved--would not buy God's favor.

I hope this note does not inspire a flame war. I know some list members
have deeply held convictions about this issue.  I only raise it to invite
discussion of the nature of PISTIS in Paul's writings, as this clearly
bears on the issue of justification by *faith/trust/faithfulness*.


------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer                                  mwpalmer AT earthlink.net
North Carolina State University
Philosophy and Religion (New Testament)
Foreign Languages (Ancient Greek)

Visit the Greek Language and Linguistics Gateway at
http://www.greek-language.com/
------------------------------------------------------------